Ex Parte HEPNER et al - Page 10


                 Appeal 2006-2504                                                                                  
                 Application 09/422,998                                                                            
                                             Claims 13, 16, and 21                                                 
                       We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 16, and 21 as                       
                 being unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey.  Since Appellants’                               
                 arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single                    
                 group which stand or fall together, we will select independent claim 13 as                        
                 the representative claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R.                                        
                 § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).                                                                         
                       With respect to this group, Appellants essentially restate the same                         
                 arguments previously presented for claim 1 (Br. 13-15).  Because we have                          
                 found supra that Wookey teaches receiving a request from a client, and                            
                 querying the system as specified by the request, we will sustain the                              
                 Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 13 as being unpatentable over                        
                 Wookey for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.                              
                       Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed                            
                 separately to the patentability of dependent claims 16 and 21.  In the                            
                 absence of a separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those                        
                 claims stand or fall with the representative independent claim.  See In re                        
                 Young, 927 F.2d at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091. See also 37 C.F.R.                                     
                 § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).  Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s                              
                 rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Wookey for the same                          
                 reasons discussed supra with respect to representative claim 13.                                  
                                                 Claims 18, 20, and 22                                             
                       We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 20, and 22 as                       
                 being unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey.  Since Appellants’                               
                 arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single                    


                                                        10                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013